Jump to content

Can a BF109k4 use a 500kg bomb?


Recommended Posts

I´m did try to use a 500kg bomb Online, but its not possible because it exceeds the weight limit.

To not exceed its limit i need to "fly" without fuel and Ammo (0% to both) :doh:

Well... Can a 109 fly or not with a 500kg bomb?

 

it can but t/o is tricky you need more power for take off

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it can but t/o is tricky you need more power for take off

 

I only tried once time Online on BurningSkies with upwind...I can manage many things, but my landing gear seems not, they colapse when i did start the run to takeoff and this happened quickly without much power. I dindn´t try taking care with power to make a smoth aceleration to try to not break the gear...I will try another time OffLine....:joystick:

 

But its strange that the 109 can only operate with a SC500 bomb exceeding a weight limit.... The plane can fly without ammo, but can´t fly without fuel! 0% of fuel?:pilotfly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

K-4 empty weight should be somewhere around 2350kg and not 2900kg like in DCS.

So, don't worry about it, take these numbers in DCS as a informative not as a mandatory.

F-15E | F-14A/B

P-51D | P-47D | Mosquito FB Mk VI |Spitfire | Fw 190D | Fw 190A | Bf 109K |  WWII Assets Pack

Normandy 2 | The Channel | Sinai | Syria | PG | NTTR | South Atlantic 

F/A-18 | F-86 | F-16C | A-10C | FC-3 | CA | SC |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

K-4 empty weight should be somewhere around 2350kg and not 2900kg like in DCS.

So, don't worry about it, take these numbers in DCS as a informative not as a mandatory.

 

so why its 2900 not 2300 ??

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The K4 basic airframe has a lot more installed equipment than a G10, with additional structural reinforcement and is heavier. Most sources tend to use Gustav weights in common with Kurfurst but primary references such as Luftwaffe pilots remark the K4 is heavier than a G10 whilst sharing basic specification and many, sometimes most components, but it was sturdier. Empty weight should be significantly heavier than a Gustav.

 

Historically the tailwheel of the late 109 variants were lengthened to allow ground clearance for the fins of a 500kg bomb, but following an extensive discussion at a warbird aviation site citing numerous primary sources that only a 250kg bomb was carried in practise, largely because no actual examples of any 109 carrying a 500kg bomb during a combat sortie exist in photographic or any other kind of primary reference, only the 250kg or four 50kg. It is definitely intended to be capable of carrying one, it is just no historical example exists for whatever reason such as rough field operation (poor ground clearance for stores on bouncy take off runs), or maybe just better availability of 250kg.

It's still a big bomb. It's basically the same thing as 500lb allied bombs, an effective ground attack load.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The K4 basic airframe has a lot more installed equipment than a G10, with additional structural reinforcement and is heavier. Most sources tend to use Gustav weights in common with Kurfurst but primary references such as Luftwaffe pilots remark the K4 is heavier than a G10 whilst sharing basic specification and many, sometimes most components, but it was sturdier. Empty weight should be significantly heavier than a Gustav.

 

Historically the tailwheel of the late 109 variants were lengthened to allow ground clearance for the fins of a 500kg bomb, but following an extensive discussion at a warbird aviation site citing numerous primary sources that only a 250kg bomb was carried in practise, largely because no actual examples of any 109 carrying a 500kg bomb during a combat sortie exist in photographic or any other kind of primary reference, only the 250kg or four 50kg. It is definitely intended to be capable of carrying one, it is just no historical example exists for whatever reason such as rough field operation (poor ground clearance for stores on bouncy take off runs), or maybe just better availability of 250kg.

It's still a big bomb. It's basically the same thing as 500lb allied bombs, an effective ground attack load.

 

 

I have not my literature in my hands now, but if i remeber correct K4 was around 150kg heavier than G10 for example.

 

 

 

What is your source for tailwheel modification reason? All of my sources says primary reason for tall tailwheel was indeed to have less taxiing angle to aid TO/landings (it was compared to FW 190 wich has 2 degrees less angle before modification).

CPU: Intel Core i7-2600k @3.40GHz | Motherboard: Asus P8P67-M | Memory: Kingston 8GB DDR3 | OS W10 | GPU: Sapphire R9 290x 8GBDDR5 | Monitor: Samsung Syncmaster 24" | Devices: Oculus Rift, MS FFB 2 joystick, Saitek X 52 Pro throttle, Saitek Pro pedals, Gametrix Jetseat

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...